International Journal of Small Craft Technology

ANALYSIS OF RUDDER SPAN EFFECTS ON IMS HYDRODYNAMIC INDUCED DRAG

J Teeters, US Sailing USA, R Pollard and C Muselet, Institute for Dynamics, Canada.

SUMMARY

The physical draft of keels has long been known to be critical for the upwind performance of sailboats and has long
been an element of handicap rules. The IMS rule uses a relatively sophisticated algorithm for assessing keel draft yet,
as is the case with other rules, has never included any influence of rudder span. However, there is considerable
empirical evidence that rudders can make a significant contribution to performance by increasing the total effective
draft. Tank test research was conducted to explore rudder span and quantify performance differences. The results have
been incorporated into the IMS 2002 rule in a way that is intended to give some rating relief to boats with shallow
rudders yet to not drive optimised design in that direction

NOMENCLATURE

ρ density of water its own predictions of aerodynamics and hydrodynamics.

G gravity A system of algorithms, originally shown by Kerwin [1]
Lwl waterline length with updates well documented by Claughton [2], has
Bwl waterline beam been developed to represent the data generated by
V boat speed research. These algorithms require boat measurement.
Leeway Angle of attack of boat centreline to flow Hulls, keels and rudders are “wanded” with a device that
Yaw (Leeway) generates a family of transverse curves from bow to
Heel Angle of roll of boat about centreline stern. Rigs are measured as well as the dimensions of the
δrudr Angle of deflection of rudder sails. The boats are floated in water where freeboards are
Fn Froude number, non-dimensional speed taken and the stability derived from an inclining test.
= V/(G * Lwl)^.5
Q dynamic pressure = 1/2ρV^2 The importance of high quality scientific data to such a
CE center of effort rating system is obvious. The rule is only as good as the
Karea Keel profile area underlying data and the algorithms that represent that
Rarea Rudder profile area data. Systematic research, such as tank testing of hulls
dCl/dA Lift slope (lift coefficient per radian) and wind tunnel evaluations of sails, is conducted as part
of ongoing rule development.

1. INTRODUCTION 1.2 RUDDER SPAN

1.1 IMS HANDICAPPING Over the course of the last decade, yacht designs
optimised to the IMS rule have developed deep rudders
The International Measurement System (IMS) rule has in parallel with deep keels. Yet, as of 2001, there has
been handicapping racing sailboats since the late 1970s never been any performance assessment of rudder span
through its precursor the MHS rule. The heart of the rule in the rule.
is the estimation of boat speeds using a Velocity
Prediction Program (VPP). The VPP uses Boat racing is the full-scale testing venue that provides
representations of the fundamental science of sailboats the ultimate evaluation on what is fast. If something is
and resolves the balance of forces and moments of static successful on the racecourse then there is likely a good
equilibrium. reason for it.

The purpose of the IMS VPP is to provide sufficiently As rudders became deeper and developed ever higher
accurate estimates of speed differences between various aspect ratios, it became apparent to the IMS rule makers
sailing boats, at various conditions of wind and course, to that this is something they may want to handicap, not to
derive handicaps or time allowances to enable those penalize deep draft but to give some rating relief to boats
boats to race equitably. This is, of course, a goal of with shallow rudders. This is in keeping with the IMS
virtually all rating rules. VPP based rules are unique in philosophy of seeking to handicap diversity without
that they rely almost entirely on scientific methods. driving design into specific solutions. In other words,
they did not want owners of boats with shallow rudders
Contrary to many VPPs, such as those often used in to feel compelled to replace them. At the same time they
America’s Cup campaigns, the IMS VPP must generate did not want to penalize deep rudders to the extent that

© The Royal Institution of Naval Architect 2003

owners would be compelled to use shallower ones. 2. TANK TEST PROGRAM

The viscous drag effects of rudder area and aspect ratio In 1999, the International Technical Committee (ITC) of
are reasonably well accounted for in the IMS VPP. The the Offshore Racing Council (ORC) committed to a
obvious source of the unrated performance benefit was research and development program investigating rudder
the reduction of induced drag. span for incorporation into the IMS rule.

1.3 LIFT-INDUCED DRAG US Sailing already had an ongoing tank test program
with the Institute of Marine Dynamics (IMD) in St.
Lift induced vortex drag is created whenever a device of John’s, Newfoundland. The principal focus of this
limited span, such as the wing of an airplane or the keel program has been systematic variations of canoe body
(rudder) of a boat, generates lift. This occurs in practice beam and displacement, appended and bare, in both calm
when the device, or foil, is placed in an onset flow at an water and head seas. The ORC, US Sailing and IMD, as
angle of attack to that flow. Lift can also occur at zero part of the latter’s internal research, collaborated on the
angle of attack if the foil is asymmetric in shape, such as rudder test program.
a cambered wing. Induced drag is the consequence of
shedding vortices at the tip of the foil. This tip vortex The US Sailing baseline model, IMD5, was chosen as the
can be observed using flow visualization techniques. test hull for the rudders. The full scale characteristics of
Figure 1 is a photo, from behind, of a keel and bulb that hull and its keel are given in Table 1. Test models
configuration taken at the Glenn L. Martin Wind Tunnel, are ½ scale. The keel is a simple trapezoidal shape.
University of Maryland. The white oil film clearly
shows the spiralling of streamlines around the black bulb. Lwl (m) 12.465
The energy that goes into creating this tip vortex is the Bwl (m) 3.193
source of the induced drag. Hull Disp (m^3) 8.936
Keel Draft (m) 2.955
Keel Span (m) 2.45
Keel Root (m) 1.585
Keel Tip (m) 1.056
Keel T/C 13.00%
Keel LE (% Lwl) 43.30%
Table 1. Hull/Keel Characteristics

2.1 RUDDER GEOMETRY & CONSTRUCTION

To investigate rudder span effects, a family of three

rudders was developed. These are illustrated in Figure 2,
with characteristics listed in Table 2. There is a regular
variation in span and in depth ratio (rudder tip depth to
keel tip depth). A lifting line analysis was used to ensure
that all three rudders have the same lift slope (lift
coefficient per degree angle of attack.)
Figure 1. Flow Visualization of Tip Vortex on a
Keel/Bulb Deep Mid Shallow
Span (m) 2.8 2.3 1.8
Span is certainly the most critical element of foil Depth Ratio 0.949 0.783 0.608
geometry effecting how much induced drag is created for Root (m) 0.508 0.660 0.950
a given lift. For a sailboat this span is the physical draft Root T/C 18.00% 15.00% 12.00%
of the keel below the water surface. The IMS VPP uses Volume (m3) 0.0591 0.0710 0.0995
this draft to calculate the lift-induced drag. The formula Prof Area (m2) 1.228 1.344 1.602
is relatively sophisticated in that it includes the effects of
dCl/dA (/radian) 5.320 4.885 4.074
hull beam/draft ratio with a conformal mapping method
LiftArea@4 (m2) 0.456 0.458 0.456
developed by Letcher and heel angle and boat speed
factors from Teeters using a variety of tank test data. Table 2. Rudder Characteristics

Along with the span variation, there are variations in

rudder volume and the vertical and longitudinal centers
of those volumes. This will certainly have some effect

© The Royal Institution of Naval Architect 2003

on performance. The rudders will also have different angle of heel. For a given configuration, the lift actually
frictional drag characteristics. The IMS rule currently generated is dependent on the parameters of leeway,
has assessments of such effects and the intent of this rudder angle, heel and boat speed. To determine the
study was to limit the analysis to changes in induced matrix of variations of these parameters, the IMS VPP
drag. was executed with a boat model of IMD5 appended with
the mid-span rudder. The cross symbols in Figure 4
show the combinations of heel angle and boat speed,
expressed as Froude number, from the VPP. The left
hand string of crosses is composed of upwind solutions;
the right hand string is reaching.

The circles are the values chosen for tank test analysis.
Regular values of heel and speed were chosen to
facilitate comparisons. At each of these combinations of
heel and speed, a set matrix of 3 leeway and 4 rudder
angles was tested. These angles were chosen to bracket
the requisite lift, as determined by the VPP. The entire
test program for each rudder is shown in Table 3.

30

25

Heel Angle 20

15

10
VPP Results
Tank Test Variations
5

0
Figure 2. Rudder Profiles 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
Froude Number
The rudders were milled from Renshape 550 in the IMD
model shop with integral rudder stocks. Figure 3 shows Figure 4. Heel and Speed Variations from IMS VPP
the deep rudder under construction.
Heel Speed Leeway Rudder
(deg) (Fn) (deg) (deg)
10 0.25, 0.30 1.5, 3, 4.5 2, 4, 6, 8
15 0.30, 0.35 1.5, 3, 4.5 2, 4, 6, 8
25 0.35, 0.40, 0.45 1.5, 3, 4.5 2, 4, 6, 8
Table 3. Test Matrix

3. TANK TEST RESULTS

3.1 LIFT DRAG POLARS

Figure 5 shows typical results for a given heel angle and

boat speed. All data shown is model scale forces with
Figure 3. Milling of Deep Rudder at IMD drag corrected for turbulence stimulation. Drag Area
(drag/Q) is plotted versus. Lift Area (lift/Q.) The lift
2.2 RUDDER TEST MATRIX being plotted is in the horizontal plane, perpendicular to
the course through the water. Please note that the drag
The lift required of the hull/keel/rudder configuration on shown is total, not just lift-induced, drag. The rudder
a sailboat is a function of the stability of the boat and its sweeps (2, 4, 6, 8 degrees) at each leeway angle are

© The Royal Institution of Naval Architect 2003

connected with curves. Because there are 3 rudders and 3.2 LONGITUDINAL CENTER OF EFFORT
3 yaw angles, there are 9 curves in total. The leftmost 3
curves are for 1.5 deg leeway, the rightmost for 4.5 deg. Figure 6 illustrates the effect on the longitudinal center of
A few observations are in order. effort (C.E) of the various leeway/rudder combinations.
This figure is the same as Figure 5 except that the curves
• The induced drag here is the difference in drag at a of CE location for the mid span rudder have been added
particular lift to the drag at zero lift. for each leeway. The leftmost curve, 1.5 deg leeway, has
• Induced drag is proportional to lift2. This is why the a dramatic variation in CE: the keel is lightly loaded and
curves of the yaw sweeps are essentially parabolic. any rudder load has a strong influence pulling the CE aft.
• The range of lift generated at this heel and Fn is
quite broad. Indeed some of the combinations of This hydrodynamic center of effort must, of course,
leeway and rudder are outside what is normal for a balance the aerodynamic center for straight-line sailing.
conventional sailboat. Some of these combinations Any imbalance, intentional or not, will turn the boat.
imply dramatic changes in longitudinal center of The compromises that ensue from the requirement of
effort. However, the test matrix, as designed, yaw balance will become evident.
permits a clear numerical representation of induced
drag. 3.3 CURVE FITS TO LIFT DRAG POLARS
• Quite clearly, at a given Lift Area, the Drag Area is
substantially reduced with increasing rudder span. An effective way to predict the drag, at any given lift for
This is the performance benefit currently ignored in a particular rudder, is to formulate an interpolating
handicap rules. equation for the data. In this study such numerical fits
were performed for each rudder at each combination of
0.080 heel and speed. Lift and induced drag tend to be
represented quite well by simple formulas in which lift is
Mid Span
Shallow Span
proportional to the angle of attack of a foil and induced
0.075
Deep Span
drag is proportional to the square of the lift. These
relationships suggested the following formulas:
0.070

Lift Area = LA0 + LAkeel + LArudr (1)

Drag Area

0.065
where
LA0 = Lift Area when Yaw = δrudr =0
0.060
LAkeel = LSkeel x Yaw x Karea (2)
LArudr = LSrudr x (Ydw x Yaw + δrudr) (3)
0.055 x Rarea

0.050 LSkeel and LSrudr are coefficients to be determined. Ydw

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 is a factor on Yaw to represent the flow angle at the
Lift Area rudder when the boat is at a non-zero leeway angle. In
Figure 5. Lift and Drag at Heel=15, Fn=0.345
fact, this factor was virtually 1.0 for all the data sets.

Drag Area = DA0 + DAkeel + DArudr (4)

0.080 0.40

where
0.075 0.45 DA0 = Drag Area when Yaw = δrudr =0
DAkeel = C1k x LAkeel + C2k x LA2keel (5)
0.070 0.50 DArudr = C1r x LArudr + C2r x LA2rudr (6)
C.E. (% of LWL)
Drag Area

C1k, C2k, C1r, and C2r are coefficients to be

0.065 0.55
determined. DAkeel and DArudr represent induced drag.

0.060 0.60 Yaw Volume = YV0 + YVkeel + YVrudr (7)

0.055
Mid Span
0.65
where
Shallow Span Yaw Volume = Yaw Moment / Q
Deep Span YV0 = Yaw Volume when Yaw = δrudr =0
0.050 0.70
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
YVkeel = LAkeel * Xkeel (8)
Lift Area YVrudr = LArudr * Xrudr (9)
Figure 6. Center of Effort at Heel=15, Fn=0.345

© The Royal Institution of Naval Architect 2003

The yaw moment is used to calculate the hydrodynamic 9
longitudinal center of effort. Xkeel and Xrudr are the Leeway, Unconstrained
centers for the keel and rudder respectively. These can 8 Rudder, Unconstrained
be estimated or determined from a regression method. In Leeway, CE Constrained
7
this study the latter method was used. The resulting Rudder, CE Constrained

positions were reasonable and consistent across all data 6

sets.

Angle (degrees)
5

Best fit methods were applied to the data for each rudder
4
at each heel/speed combination. These fits could then be
evaluated at any specified lift to find the leeway and 3
rudder angles that resulted in the least drag. Figure 7
shows the minimum Drag Area at each Lift Area for the 2
data in Figure 5. This permits a direct comparison of the
1
drag penalty for reducing rudder span.
0
0.080 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Mid Span Lift Area
Shallow Span
0.075 Figure 8. Leeway and Rudder, Heel=15, Fn=.345
Deep Span

0.070
0.070
Mid Span
Shallow Span
Drag Area

0.068
Deep Span
0.065 Mid Span CE Balance
0.066 Shallow Span CE Balance
Deep Span CE Balance

0.060 0.064
Drag Area

0.062
0.055

0.060
0.050
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.058
Lift Area
0.056
Figure 7. Minimum Drag, Unconstrained CE
0.054
3.4 CE CONSTRAINED SOLUTIONS FOR 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
MINIMUM DRAG Lift Area

So far no hydrodynamic center of effort constraint has Figure 9. Minimum Drag, Effect of CE Balance
been imposed and the results in Figure 7 are, therefore,
somewhat optimistic. The discrepancy between solutions for minimum induced
drag and reasonable yaw balance becomes quite dramatic
Figure 8 shows leeway and rudder angles with and at very high heel angles and high speeds. Figure 10
without CE constraints. The change in angles at the shows results for 25 degrees heel, Fn = 0.45. This
higher lift areas is due to a different constraint: that the corresponds to a sailing condition of close reaching at
leeway angle be less than 5 degrees (the highest angle high speeds in a substantial breeze. The minimum drag
tested was 4.5 deg). These higher lift areas would apply at a Lift Area of 0.3 would be achieved, particularly for
to high load situations such as accelerating out of a tack the deep rudder, with a relatively low leeway and very
or off the starting line. There is a large difference in the high rudder.
solution rudder angles. When unconstrained, the rudder
takes on values that are quite a bit lower and the CE’s are Because of this interesting behaviour, the rudder sweeps
too far forward. were extended by adding a 10 degree setting. The curve
labelled “Minimum Drag” passes through the data for
Finally, Figure 9 shows the difference in minimum drag, maximum rudder angles. At a lift area of 0.30 the
with and without CE constraints, for Heel=15, Fn=0.345. leeway angle is 2.8 degrees and the hydrodynamic center
For the shallow span rudder, the difference in total drag of effort is about 10% of the waterline further aft than
is on the order of 1%, for the midspan it is negligible, what might be called typical. To balance this would
and for the deep rudder about .3%. require moving the rig substantially aft.

© The Royal Institution of Naval Architect 2003

 0.135 The IMS 2001 induced drag formula [2] was developed
Mid Span in 1993 as a fit to data from a number of tank tests of
Shallow Span
0.130 various keels and hull shapes. It is very encouraging that
Deep Span
Minimum Drag the VPP predicted drag closely correlates with the “Mid
0.125 Span” rudder configuration. The draft of that rudder,
relative to the keel draft, is similar to that of the pre-1993
0.120
tank models. Equally encouraging results were derived at
Drag Area

lift areas of 0.15, 0.35 and 0.45.

0.115

0.110
4.2 EFFECTIVE DRAFT

0.105 Differences in induced drag can be expressed as

differences in effective draft. In the IMS rule, induced
0.100 drag is given by:

0.095 Induced Drag = (FHW/VS)2 / (PI*ρ*Deff2) (10)

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Lift Area
where
Figure 10. Lift and Drag at Heel=25, Fn=0.45 FHW = Side Force in Heeled Plane
Deff = Effective Draft
The data for all 7 combinations of heel and rudder have
been fit to equations (1) through (9), with a reasonable An “economical” way to introduce rudder span effects
set of CE constraints imposed. This permitted a realistic into the IMS rule was to develop a modifier to Deff.
comparison of the best potential performance of the Equation (10) can be inverted to derive Deff as a
various rudders. function of induced drag from equation (4).

Figure 12 shows the ratio of these derived effective drafts

4. IMS RULE DEVELOPMENT to those predicted by IMS versus the ratio of rudder
depth to keel depth. The curves shown are for the four
4.1 INDUCED DRAG COMPARISONS tank data conditions that most closely approximate
upwind optimal sailing. The lift area in all the cases was
Formulas (4), (5) and (6) give the total drag at a given 0.25 m2. It is clear that the change in effective draft is
lift. DAkeel and DArudr are, nominally, the induced drag. nearly linear with depth ratio. The deep rudder adds up
A more accurate derivation of induced drag is to take the to 10% to the effective draft; the shallow rudder takes
total drag of equation (4) and subtract the actual drag at away about 10%.
zero lift. This was performed and the results compared
against predictions from the IMS rule. Figure 11 shows 1.3
Heel: 10, Fn: .247
the total hydrodynamic induced drag for each of the three Heel: 10, Fn: .296
rudders as well as that predicted by the IMS 2001 rule for 1.2 Heel: 15, Fn: .296
Heel: 25, Fn: .345
all heel/speed combinations.
1.1
0.020
IMS Deff Ratio

IMS
0.018 Mid Span
Shallow Span 1.0
0.016 Deep Span

0.014 0.9

0.012
Drag Area

0.8
0.010

0.008 0.7
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0.006 Depth Ratio (Rudder/Keel)

0.004
Figure 12. Effective Draft Ratios
0.002
A regression was set up to predict the effective draft ratio
0.000
(EDR) as parabolic in depth ratio (DR) and parabolic in
Heel & Speed Combinations
heel angle:
Figure 11. Induced Drag Area at Lift Area=0.25

© The Royal Institution of Naval Architect 2003

EDR = c1 + c2*Heel + c3*Heel2 + c4*DR + c5*DR 2 (11) winners from losers. It would, of course, be nice to have
absolute predictions as correct as possible; it just has a
4.3 A PHILOSOPHY FOR IMS RULE CHANGES lower priority.

The requirements of a VPP used for handicapping are not 1.2

the same as those for a VPP used for design. The former
needs to stand up to the intense scrutiny of designers
who, quite appropriately, are seeking to design boats that 1.1
take advantage of perceived biases. Therefore, the
algorithms in such a VPP need to be as robust and as
simple as possible, yet still faithfully represent the

IMS Deff Ratio

1.0
science of sailboats. Algorithms that do not meet those
criteria can lead to unreasonable ratings and unfortunate
avenues for design exploitation. 0.9

Heel: 15, Fn: .296, Larea: .25

Another influence on VPP development is that the Heel: 15, Fn: .296, Larea: .35
Heel: 15, Fn: .296, Larea: .45
success of IMS, just like any rating rule, is measured in 0.8 Heel: 15, Regression Fit
part by the size and level of participation of its Detuned Slope
constituency. Changes to the rule, i.e. VPP changes, are
carefully vetted to ensure that they not only provide 0.7
greater accuracy in ratings, but also do not disenfranchise 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
a significant portion of the racing fleet or steer optimised Depth Ratio (Rudder/Keel)
design into some undesired direction.
Figure 13. Implied IMS Deff Correction Factor
So how do you bring changes into the rule without
causing unacceptable disruption? One guideline, of long The last curve in Figure 13, titled “Detuned Slope”, is the
standing, is to give only partial credit for design features critical one. This illustrates the assessment of rudder
that create slow boats. This approach is often called “no draft that was actually incorporated into the IMS 2002
credit for towing a bucket.” If the rule were to give full rule. Note that the slope is shallower, it is actually 75%
credit then it would run the risk of all boats adding of the dashed line regression fit. This means that only
“buckets.” It is not the intent of IMS to develop slow 75% of the test implied draft credit is being given to
boats. This not buckets philosophy was observed while shallow rudders. Because induced drag is proportional to
incorporating rudder span effects. effective draft squared, only 56% (0.75x0.75) of the
induced drag difference is being compensated. This was
4.4 RUDDER SPAN EFFECTS IN THE IMS RULE intentional, following the logic explained two paragraphs
earlier.
The IMS rule currently handicaps a great diversity of
designs with many keel and rudder configurations. There Note also that the last curve was forced to go through a
are variations in keel draft to boat length as well as in depth ratio value of 0.75. Figure 13 is only one
rudder draft to keel draft. This particular study had only particular example, at 15 degrees heel and a Froude
one ratio of keel draft to boat length. It would take a big number of 0.296. After analysing similar graphs at the
leap of faith to believe that the results of this limited tank other conditions tested, it was observed that the effective
test program would apply to all the appendage draft ratios are, on average, equal to one in the proximity
configurations that exist in the IMS fleet. of a depth ratio of 0.75. In fact, the rudder to keel depth
ratio of the models used for the pre-existing formulation
The ORC therefore adopted a conservative approach that for induced drag were on the order of 0.75 so it is not
would give some rating relief to boats with shallow surprising that any adjustment to that formula for a
rudders, but not enough to drive design towards rudder of that depth ratio would have little effect.
“requiring” such rudders. Figure 13 shows the same type
of data as in Figure 12, this time for a heel of 15 degrees, The induced drag “credits” derived from this formula,
a Froude number of 0.296 and three lift areas. Included even with the 25% factor, can be quite significant for
is a curve entitled “Regression Fit” using equation (11) boats with shallow rudders and relatively deep keels.
evaluated at this heel and the tank test depth ratios. Consistent with the concerns expressed earlier that only
one keel span was tested in this study, a further de-tuning
It is important to remember that, for a handicapping rule, was imposed as a linear function of the ratio of keel
the slope of the change in effective draft ratio with depth depth to hull waterline length. For extremely deep keels,
ratio is more important than the absolute value of where physical keel draft is 30% of waterline length,
effective draft ratio, i.e., what is critical for the IMS VPP there was no further adjustment. For shallow keels that
is to predict that change in performance with a change in are only 15% of waterline length, only 50% of the credit
design because relative ratings between boats sort out for effective depth was applied.

© The Royal Institution of Naval Architect 2003

The following equations list the entire formula used in rating credit due to boats with shallow rudders. The
the IMS 2002 rule. maximum change in speed for boats in the ITC test fleet
sailing upwind in 12 knots is about +/- 4 seconds per
AppDepthRatio (ADR) = Rudder Draft / Keel Draft mile, or approximately one boat length per mile. Most
DraftLengthRatio (DLR) = Keel Draft / Hull Length boats will be affected by less than one second per mile.
DraftLengthFactor (DLF) = 1 - 3.333 * (.3 – DLR)
RudderSpanFactor (RSF) = 1 + DLF * {.75 * .927 * Deep rudders are still somewhat favoured, but only by a
(ADR - .75) + .75 * (-.3056) * (ADR^2 - .75^2)} small margin. Again, the goal was to provide some
rating relief for shallow rudders but not so much that we
Where, in IMS terms: encourage them and thereby promote slow designs.
Rudder Draft = DHRA
Keel Draft = DEF (DHKA + centerboard effects) It is expected that the induced drag characteristics of a
Hull Length = LSM1 keel and rudder combination could be well represented
by the use of biplane theory. Indeed the IMS rule does
Figure 14 illustrates these equations. Each curve is for a this to handicap ketch and yawl rigs. Applying biplane
different keel draft to hull length ratio (DLR above.) The theory to keels and rudders could provide a logical,
intentional reduction in rating adjustment for boats of technically defensible, method to handicap a greater
shallow draft is clear. variety of appendage combinations. Much of the change
in induced drag seen in this study, particularly at high
1.2 speeds, could be the result of deformation of the free
surface. The results presented in this paper would be
necessary to “calibrate” the biplane algorithms.
1.1
Aside from IMS handicapping considerations, it is clear
that there is quite a bit of variation in optimal leeway and
rudder angles that, depending on heel angle and boat
IMS Deff Ratio

1.0
speed, provide minimum drag. It is interesting to
speculate on the development of a rig and sailplan with
0.9
DEF / LSM1 = .150 sufficient fore and aft flexibility to realize the potential
DEF / LSM1 = .200 reductions in hydrodynamic induced drag.
DEF / LSM1 = .250
0.8 DEF / LSM1 = .300
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

0.7 The authors would like to thank US Sailing, the Offshore

0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Racing Council and the Institute of Marine Dynamics for
Depth Ratio (Rudder/Keel) supporting this program. US Sailing and its James
McCurdy Fund have made the IMD program possible.
Figure 14. Effect of Keel Depth to Waterline Length on Through the ORC, financial support for rudder
the IMS rudder draft correction. construction has come from sailors throughout the entire
world. IMD itself has been quite generous by including
test studies, such as this, of various issues affecting yacht
5. CONCLUSIONS performance as part of their internal research.
The ultimate test of any change in a handicapping rule is Lastly, we would like to thank all the “rule technicians”
whether the change promotes better racing. What the who precede us that have been interested in and
ORC has tried to do is: volunteered enormous energy to the science of
• Recognise a characteristic of sailboats (rudder handicapping sailing yachts. Our efforts follow their
draft) whose effect on performance is not lead.
assessed and is, therefore, being exploited.
• Conduct research to derive an analytical 7. REFERENCES
representation of the performance effect.
• Create a VPP algorithm that gives a reasonable 1. Kerwin, J.E., “A Velocity Prediction Program for
rating assessment without driving optimised Ocean Racing Yachts Revised to June 1978”,
design into a new direction, i.e. without forcing MIT/H. Irving Pratt Ocean Race Handicapping
owners to alter their boats. Project Report 78-11, July 1978.
2. Claughton, A., “Developments in the IMS VPP
In the case of rudder depth, the test data showed very Formulations”, SNAME 14th CSYS, Annapolis,
clear distinctions between the rudders, so drafting a rule MD, pp 1-20, 1999.
algorithm was relatively straightforward. That algorithm 3. Letcher, John, Various Notes on IMS Induced Drag.
was then slightly ‘tuned’ to give most but not all of the

© The Royal Institution of Naval Architect 2003